Pages

Friday, September 25, 2009

The Tenth Amendment Center has reprinted a speech given by Ron Paul in 2007 in favor of auditing the Federal Reserve Bank as a first step toward abolishing it. In it, Rep. Paul argues that transparency is essential, if the public is to have confidence in the way its currency is being handled.

History will show that the Federal Reserve Bank is behind the greatest theft of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich in history. If the facts presented in this speech be widely known, the Bank would be closed in a hurry.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

The Ohio Senate State and Local Government and Veterans' Affairs Committee passed its state sovereignty resolution (SCR13) by a party-line vote of 6-3 this morning.

According to Gongwer, the only testimony given was by Richard McClaskey of Blacklick, a member of the People's Constitution Coalition of Ohio, who said that legislators should not be considering if they should pass the resolution, but instead how to make it stronger.

Next stop is the Senate floor. Keep those letters, e-mails, and calls going to Senate President Bill Harris to get it scheduled!

On Sept. 17, the Senate in neighbor and football rival Michigan passeditsstate sovereignty resolution (SCR4) 33-0 with 4 members excused. Word on the street has it that Ohio's Senate won't be far behind ...

James Pethokoukis at Reuters reports that the stock of VeriChip, a manufacturer of implantable chips, tripled in value after it announced that it has created a chip to detect airborne viruses, such as the H1N1 (swine flu) virus, and other threats such as Staphylococcus aureus.

Monday, September 21, 2009

This article from the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram notes that movements are developing all across North America, not just Texas. In addition to the Texas independence movements and Larry Kilgore's candidacy for Texas governor in 2010, the article mentions the Second Vermont Republic and Cascadia (in the Pacific Northwest).

It also lists laws passed in Montana and Tennessee nullifying Federal law for firearms produced in-state, a proposed state Constitutional amendment in Arizona to opt the state out of proposed federal healthcare mandates, and resolutions in nearly two dozen states to refuse participation in the Real ID Act (which requires state drivers' licenses and ID cards to meet federal standards).

The article also brings up a great opportunity for Ohio anti-war activists, a burgeoning movement to "Bring the Guard Home", which is pushing legislation in 23 states to empower governors to recall state National Guard units from Iraq on the grounds that the federal law authorizing the deployments has expired.

Nothing earth-shaking yet, but definitely an indicator of things to come.

Sept. 22 update: Now, Lou Dobbs has joined Glenn Beck in discussing the Tenth Amendment (and to a limited extent, secessionism) on his radio show. And like Glenn Beck, he is catching his share of liberal namecalling.

If this isn't an argument for independence, I don't know what is (from WCMH-TV 4 in Columbus):

President Barack Obama told The Toledo Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on the eve of the next G-20 meeting[:] “If you think about what’s happening in Ohio and the manufacturing base that employed so many people, the decline in that sector of the economy took decades,“ the President said.“And reversing that and rebuilding it is going to take two decades as well."

The president said it’s important to have policies in place that will help manufacturing companies trying to rebound to sell theirproducts at home and overseas. Obama says there is good news in the success Toledo has had becoming a national hub for solar energy research and manufacturing. “That market we know is going to grow,“ the president said. He also praised Pittsburgh as a world-class city chosen to hostthe G-20 summit because it is a success story of the changing U.S. economy.

And in those 20 years, Ohioans have faithfully paid their federal income taxes, and even been the swing state in two Presidential elections. We have waited on the Republicans and we have waited on the Democrats. The Feds contributed nothing to the success of Toledo, and are not likely to contribute anything meaningful to the success of anywhere else.

The cost of federal government is a serious drag on economic growth. The solution is to get the Feds out of our way and start taking care of ourselves. Now.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

The Ohio Senate State and Local Government and Veterans' Affairs Committee will meet on Tuesday at 10 am to hold hearings for proponents, opponents, and interested parties to Ohio's state sovereignty resolution SCR13. My source indicates that there is a good chance the resolution will be voted on Tuesday, and there is a good chance of passage.

Canadian writer Kevin D. Annett has documented the way the Canadian government has historically committed genocide against its Native America population. It sounds as though the genocide is continuing through the swine flu vaccine.

Last week, many of the aboriginal people in the remote west coast village of Ahousaht were innoculated with the tamiflu vaccine. Today, over a hundred of them are sick, and the sickness is spreading.

In the same week, body bags were sent to similarly remote native reserves in northern Manitoba that have also received the tamiflu vaccine.

On the face of things, it appears that flu vaccinations are causing a sickness that is being deliberately aimed at aboriginal people across Canada, and this sickness will be fatal: a fact acknowledged by the Canadian government by their “routine” sending of body bags to these Indian villages.

It is unlawful in Canada for on-reservation Native Americans to refuse treatment. There is a law in their Parliament to extend this prohibition to the whole population with respect to the swine-flu treatment.

Clearly, another agenda is at work; but the time to ascertain and challenge that agenda has all but run out. This coming month, forced inoculations and imprisonment of those who refuse them may be a reality across Canada. And for what reason? Clearly, not for public health, considering the sickness and death caused by previous swine flu vaccines.

I believe that the real pandemic is about to be unleashed through the very vaccines being pushed by governments and pharmaceutical giants like Novartis and Glaxo Smith Kline. The shots will be the cause, not the cure, of the pandemic. Of course, those in power can disprove this by simply being the first people to take the swine flu shot: an event about as likely as these companies forgoing the multi-billion dollar profits they will reap from the mass vaccinations.

It’s indeed ironic that, very soon, many “white” Canadians may be suffering the same fate that aboriginal people have for centuries. Perhaps it’s fitting. For if we are indeed being targeted for extermination, or at the least martial law and dictatorship, we finally can have the chance to shed our complicity in the genocide of other people, and get on the right side of humanity - simply by having to fight the system that iscausing mass murder.

An article I wrote, entitled "Beyond Red and Blue - The State Sovereignty Movement Ignites 'A Wildfire Across America'" was published in the print edition of Vermont Commons, whose blogs are frequently quoted in this space. The article is also available online.

The article documents and analyzes the growth of the state sovereignty resolution movement across the United States. The same article appeared July 29 in the online version of The Liberty Voice(based in Powell, Ohio).

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Today is Constitution Day, the 222nd anniversary of the signing of the basic document that protects our rights as Americans. Please take some time to read the Constitution today, especially Article I, Sections 8-10, which list the powers of the federal government, and the limitations on the powers of the federal and state governments. I would also encourage you to read the Bill of Rights, and compare it to that of our State (which in my opinion is superior to that of the U.S. Constitution).

If you haven't read it for a while, I think you will be appalled at just how much the Feds have overstepped their boundaries.

Please explain to me again why it is racist or offensive to send a person who has entered this country illegally back to their homeland, especially when there are many people who live here legally who are of the same race or ethnicity as those being deported?

The trial of John and Jacqueline Stowers, of LaGrange, Ohio (Stowers v. Ohio Department of Agriculture), whose Manna Storehouse was raided by Ohio Department of Agriculture agents last year, will go to trial in Lorain County Common Pleas Court October 8-9. I have reported on the case, which is being defended by the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law at the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

First, let me start out by stating that health care policy at the federal level is an unconstitutional violation of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Therefore, this conversation should not be held at the federal level. Because there are some large-scale issues relating to physicians, hospitals, and insurance companies, health care is best addressed at the state level. In addition, the State of Ohio (and other states) already regulate insurance, and pay out Medicaid, so the state level is a natural fit.

That said, most of us would agree that the health care insurance system suffers from two major problems: (1) some people are, frankly, uninsurable due to health conditions, and (2) some people and many small businesses cannot afford health care insurance.

UninsurabilityThe basic principle behind insurance of any kind is that it is designed to collectively spread risks that, at the individual level are unlikely to occur, but would be devastating if they did. Uninsurabilty occurs because a risk has become a certainty. The simplest way to explain this concept is with life insurance. Premiums for a $100,000 policy are very low for newborns, because the purpose of life insurance is to pay the insured's beneficiary when the insured dies. The likelihood of any newborn dying within the term of the policy (or before the whole-life policy has accumulated enough interest to pay the benefit) is very small. On the other hand, the premium on a policy on an 85-year-old insured will nearly match the death benefit. Human nature resists buying insurance until they perceive the risk to themselves -- thus, young adults are likely to resist buying individual health insurance, because they don't think they need it -- and quite often, they are right. They change their mind when they get sick, which then either makes them uninsurable, or requires (not allows, requires) the insurance company to charge a higher premium.

I have been told by those in the insurance industry, that health insurance itself is rarely profitable. That is, the benefits paid usually exceed the premiums received. The company will make its profit by investing premium dollars until they are needed to pay the claims.

Thus, an insurance company, when accepting a new insured, has to weigh the potential cost of paying out the benefits against the amount of premium it is likely to collect. Refusing a potential insured is simply stating that the pre-existing condition is so likely to result in expensive treatment, that the insurance company cannot afford to accept the risk. It's a business judgment, because if at all possible, the insurance company would have liked to have accepted the premium dollars.

The reason some insurance companies will accept risks that others do not, is that they can find profit with a different combination of risks from that of another insurance company.

However, it is clear that a few people will be uninsurable by any insurance company; and here is where the state government can step in. The state, through its Department of Insurance, and medical insurers should make an agreement. In exchange for the state reinsuring the insurance companies against high-risk individuals, the insurance companies will agree not to turn anyone down on the basis of medical risk. Part of the due diligence for the state will be to identify any insurance companies that will accept the risk; but the state will reimburse an insurance company for claims arising from an uninsurable condition.

The advantages of reinsurance are: (1) It does not erect a large bureaucracy to manage a program in competition with the insurance companies. (2) It allows individuals and businesses to select the insurance company and physician network that they choose. (3) It places the burden on the insurance company to manage claims.

The bureaucracy in the Department of Insurance* would consist of a few actuaries (the mathematicians who calculate the risks), a few underwriters, a few investigators, and some clerical staff. A division, perhaps, but much, much, less than a department.

Unaffordability

The solution to this problem is even simpler. Provide tax incentives for small businesses to purchase group health insurance for its employees. If the small business still cannot afford the insurance, then its employees will be allowed to take tax deductions for purchasing individual policies. Unemployed individuals can do the same; or perhaps the state could introduce a temporary major medical program as part of unemployment compensation.

There are at least two wrinkles that this "simple" proposal has not considered -- profiteering by the insurance companies or medical providers at state expense -- and the cost of the tax incentives.

I am not worried about profiteering, because the Department of Job & Family Services has had extensive experience dealing with profiteering risks among Medicaid providers. That knowledge can be brought to bear in setting policy for the reinsurance program.

I am suggesting that tax incentives and state reinsurance payments be used for major medical coverage only -- say, 80% of that which exceeds a $1,000 annual deductible (less for low-income families) for illnesses likely to require hospitalization, nursing care, expensive therapy, or expensive prescription drugs. It would not automatically pay for every office visit, every prescription, or items not related to critical illness. This will not please everyone (maybe not anyone), but it will keep the program manageable and fiscally responsible.

At least it is something to be considered in the debate.

* While the Department of Job & Family Services has experience with Medicaid, my proposal is of a technical nature, which the Department of Insurance is better equipped to handle.

Common sense by Dan Weintraub, via Vermont Commons. His title is "The Low Spark." In his post, he lists ten reasons why our economy cannot sustain itself much longer. The whole post can be summarized in two sentences: Our economy is being propped up by fraud. Frauds inevitably collapse.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

The Ohio Senate State & Local Government and Veterans’ Affairs Committee held its second hearing this morning on Ohio’s state sovereignty resolution SCR13. The committee accepted testimony from ten proponents of the resolution. Opponents will be given the opportunity to speak at a third hearing, possibly as soon as next week. The testimony lasted nearly 1½ hours, and is too voluminous to describe in detail here, so I shall concentrate on general themes.

Concern for the economy. “The Federal Government is literally sucking up the vast majority of the Ohioan’s tax dollar, and returning a fraction back with strings attached to massive financial anchors that threaten to sink Ohio,” said Brian Miller, from Stow. “Adding insult to injury, we as Ohioans watch in horror, while our hard earned tax dollars are instead passed on to states like California and New York – states with far less responsible governments, who have squandered more money than they even plan to take on everything from harboring and lavishly providing for illegal aliens to saving some inane smelt fish.”

Restoring the rights of the states under the Tenth Amendment. Several speakers mentioned the Anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification of the United States Constitution until a specific Bill of Rights was passed.

Federal encroachment on the rights of the states and the people. Brian Vandersall, from Akron, prepared an impressive list of violations of Constitutional guarantees by the federal government, including:. Article I, Section 8 ban on ex post facto laws: The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban (1996) contained a retroactive provision that enabled Federal prosecutors to try domestic violence offenders after they had served their sentence for possession of guns owned before the act was passed.· Fourth Amendment: USA Patriot Act 2001· Writ of habeas corpus (Article I, Section 9): Military Commissions Act of 2006.· Blatant failure of Congressmen to read their own legislation: In the film Fahrenheit 9/11, Congressman Conyers was recorded as saying, “We don’t really read most of the bills. Do you know what that would entail if we read every bill we passed? [It would] slow down the legislative process.”· Using taxes and credit to bail out bankrupt corporations: General Motors and Chrysler 2009; AIG and Citigroup, 2008; Franklin National Bank, 1974; Penn Central Railroad, 1970.

Congressmen do not really represent the people. Allen J. Baxter, of West Chester, has lived in his Congressional district for twelve years. He can talk to his state senator, and has his state representative’s cell phone number, but has yet to find his congressman able to take time from being “too busy” to arrange a face-to-face meeting.

The principal issue is nothing less than preserving the rule of law, said Charles Voigt, Jr., from the Columbus area. He points out that our Constitutions are the law. There are no pros or cons about that. “Unfortunately today,” Mr. Voigt adds, “it has become overwhelmingly evident … that our elected officials disregard their oaths and wantonly pass laws and usurp authority in violation of the covenant by which we, the people, agree to be governed. They do this for their own self interests of getting re-elected and, as it has become clear, in an attempt to grab power and exert their control over those who they would rule as subjects.”

Michael Alan Young, of Mount Vernon, gave lengthy testimony walking the Committee through the meaning of sovereignty, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and numerous court decisions. The rights of the people are inherent. The people consent to transfer some power to government. “Government cannot remove the sovereign power of the people, but the people can delegate to government certain powers … on their behalf.”

In America, that power was delegated to the states, which in turn delegated certain limited powers to the federal government. Mr. Young quoted James Madison in Federalist #45: “The powers of the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

In my testimony, I reviewed the history of state sovereignty resolutions, beginning with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1797, and giving special attention to a resolution passed in 1821 by the Ohio General Assembly asserting the right to tax the Bank of the United States, a privately-owned corporation that was under a federal charter to be the depository for the federal government.

I then reviewed the recent history of the resolutions, noting that they enjoy bipartisan support; and having been introduced in 39 states, have been enacted by seven. “By adopting this resolution, our General Assembly, like its predecessor in 1821, will exercise its right to enforce the Constitution of the United States. By so doing, it will stand as a bulwark to protect the rights of our state government and the people against further federal encroachment.”

The testimony drew relatively few questions from the Senators. The ranking minority member, Sen. Teresa Fedor (D-Toledo) sought opinions from some of the speakers (including myself) on the impact of state sovereignty on the North American Free Trade Agreement and the proposed North American Union. In my answer, I claimed no expertise on NAFTA, but was concerned that the North American Union would dilute our ability to act in our own interest.

Joe Bozzi presented Gabe McGranahan’s testimony in Mr. McGranahan’s absence due to car trouble. As part of that testimony, he presented the petitions of the Ohio Free State movement, which successfully met its goal of collecting 10,000 signatures in support of the Ohio state sovereignty resolutions.

The next step, as previously stated, is to hear any opposition testimony, probably next Tuesday. Supporters of the resolutions should now focus their efforts on e-mails, phone calls, and letters to persuade Ohio Senate President Bill Harris to move SCR13 onto the floor of the Senate.

Monday, September 14, 2009

This morning, I received a barrage of comments (15 , I think) from a Taiwanese spammer. I have been beset with these before, but not in such quantity. As a result I am reluctantly requiring all commenters to The Ohio Republic to enter the word verification box.

I apologize for the inconvenience, but hope that it will prove to be minimal.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Yesterday marked the second anniversary of The Ohio Republic. This is my 485th post, and the readership has nearly sextupled since this time last year. I am deeply gratified by the readership that this blog has attracted, and look forward to continuing our conversation.

When thinking about what I would write today, I asked myself what is different about The Ohio Republic from other blogs I have read. One thing that comes to mind is that I try to conduct a civil discussion. There are many people with whom I disagree, but I try to treat everyone with respect, at a time when respect can be hard to find.

Two weeks ago, I exchanged comments with a reader who disagreed with me when I considered the image of President Obama resembling Batman's Joker character to be in bad taste. This was, of course, an esthetic and moral judgement -- to each his own; but it also reflects a loss of civility in political discussion. We have traded policy debates for ad hominem attacks on officeholders; and have abandoned objectivity for partisanship. One example that particularly distresses me, is how people are judged by their preference for Fox News vs. CNN. We would be better off if more people viewed both.

I would like at this point to give kudos to State Rep. Ted Celeste (D-Upper Arlington, left). I have never met Rep. Celeste; and from what I have read of his policy positions, we are likely to disagree on many more issues than those on which we would agree. However, Rep. Celeste has, for at least two years, been conducting an ongoing campaign for greater civility in political discussion. The Columbus Dispatch gave notice to his campaign twice this weekend. Yesterday, the Dispatch published his letter to the editor, in which he noted several recent incidents: town hall meetings being disrupted by anger and shouting, some appearances in which some demonstrators were appearing with loaded weapons, school districts refusing to carry the President's address in the schools (a position with which I disagreed*), and talk-show hosts encouraging the downfall of the administration.

Rep. Celeste summarized his reaction thus:

We politicians are as much to blame as anyone. Our discourse has become partisan and angry, thoughtless and hurtful and totally lacking in civility. We are headed down a very dangerous path, and this is not the type of leadership that our constituents expect of us.

I completely agree.

Following up on this letter, Dispatch columnist Joe Hallett wrote a touching column on Kimberly Kelly, a woman who is caring for her adult son, who suffers from mitochondrial encephalomyopathy, which prevents him from speak, sit up, change positions, roll over or effectively perform any task without assistance. His mother depends on nursing assistance provided by a Medicaid program to enable her to work for a living and have a little time for herself. She was testifying at a House hearing, which as Mr. Hallett notes, is a real sacrifice for many constituents: "These citizens often burn vacation days, arrange for babysitters and drive a distance. For them, testifying at the Statehouse is unique and scary -- and a really big deal."

Mr. Hallett continues the story:

She maintained composure through her testimony, making it succinct. She invited the legislators to her Hilliard home to see how she and Joe live. When she finished, state Rep. John Patrick Carney, a Columbus Democrat, rudely lectured her, according to witnesses.

"I had to get up and leave, I was so frustrated," said Rep. Ted Celeste, a Columbus Democrat who later apologized to Kelly and was the only representative who visited her home.

"I wanted to tell her there were some of us on the committee who would take her up on the offer, and there were some of us who do care."

Instead of offering sympathy and understanding, Carney told Kelly she should be testifying in the Senate, because it was the Republicans who were threatening nursing services for her son by blocking needed revenues.

Mr. Hallett reports that Rep. Carney later apologized for his lecture to Mrs. Kelly.

Regardless of how one feels about the program, Rep. Celeste showed compassion above and beyond the call of duty, and reminds the rest of us of why it is important that we show respect for each other.

The Ohio Republic is committed to maintaining a respectful tone, and (subject to occasional slippage due to time considerations) to research our facts before expressing an opinion.

To me, this is the least we can do. The sad part is, we need Rep. Celeste to remind us of it.

* I have no objection to any President addressing schoolchildren directly, as long as they are not using schoolchildren to advance a political agenda. I have seen no evidence that President Obama has done so any more than any of his predecessors. Those who are concerned about this should have used the moment, not to shield their children from the President's message, but to help them think critically about what he said -- that is, to help them (as is age-appropriate) to form their own opinions.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Today is the eighth anniversary of the attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and as I observed last year, many questions continue to gnaw at us. There is enough evidence, raised by Michael Ruppert in his book Crossing the Rubicon, and by the 9/11 truth movement, to allow reasonable people to reasonably doubt the official version of events.

I do not know what the truth is about 9/11. I have not investigated the claims of the 9/11 truth movement; and while I have looked at Crossing the Rubicon, the book is a very dense presentation of evidence that I frankly do not have the time or the interest to read through.

I do know this. The "truthers" include the strangest bedfellows in the history of American politics: liberals intent on destroying what legacy President George W. Bush has left; and the John Birch Society, which is trying to establish malfeasance by the federal government. I have read of engineering studies that cast doubt on whether the Twin Towers could have fallen the way they did as the result of the aircrafts' impacts alone. It is evident to me, in the way the federal government has handled such investigations, that it has something to hide; just as the federal government has never addressed the evidence presented by the Zapruder film of a second assassain of John F. Kennedy.

Why should we care? It is, after all, history. It is past, and some would argue, it is time to move on. Here is why we should care: The Kennedy assassination and 9/11 have left suspicions, which appear well-grounded by known evidence, that the federal government has not been truthful with the American people.

We have the right to know the truth, whatever that truth is. If the official version is correct, it will withstand all of the evidence and questions presented against it. Otherwise, it is reasonable for us to assume that the federal government has something to hide; which will only add to the reasons Americans have for separating themselves from it.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

"[I]f I didn't know better, I'd say that all this meticulous preparation at state and federal levels suggests that the whole thing is being planned. Otherwise, state and federal governments and pharmaceutical firms are risking a massive waste of money and effort to contain what could prove to be nothing at all; or, because of virus mutations, could prove to be ineffective."

jcbrook at Vermont Commons provides evidence from Department of Defense documents that suggests this just might be the case. It displays a Report on Biological Warfare (Defense Vaccine Research & Development Programs) from July 2001 that describes, among other things, "integration of [Department of Defense] and industry vaccine objectives," on the grounds that "partnering with DoD to produce vaccines is considered a high-risk venture by industry." The "panel of experts" assembling this report were Franklin H. Top, Jr., MD, executive vice president and medical director of MedImmune, Inc.; John J. Dingerdissen, senior director for viral vaccine manufacturing at Merck & Company; and William H. Habig, Ph.D., director for R&D quality assurance and compliance at Centocor, Inc.

Now, I am sure these are all good, pubic-spirited people, who coincidentally would profit from the research...

This Vermont Commons post also includes interesting links (here and here) that proves Donald Rumsfeld's connection (chairman of the board, yet) with Gilead Sciences, co-developer of Tamiflu.

Here is an article from this May that shows that a Defense contract is benefitting MedImmune for a "pre-pandemic influenza stockpile." Who is paying for all this? We are.

If I am jumping to a wrong conclusion, I am willing to be corrected; but I'm picking up a rather strong odor... If a pandemic is being planned by the federal government (secretly, of course), it will be an act of unspeakable evil that will rival those of Hitler and Stalin -- one that should convince even the densest individual that our only hope lies in independence.

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

To those who think advocacy of secession is treason: What do you think is the purpose of having a United States of America? If your answer has anything to do with liberty, how do you justify the contradiction between jailing someone for his opinion, and freedom of speech?

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Heads-up to those who think secessionism is racist: Look at the picture. This is Dr. Walter E. Williams, respected economist and political analyst at George Mason University in Virginia. He occasionally appears as a substitute host on the Rush Limbaugh program.

Last Friday, he endorsed the Free State Project in New Hampshire, which is attempting to move 20,000 people of like mind into strategic areas of that state to peaceably take over the state government through the electoral process. He lamented that the most recent secessionist experiment (known as the Confederate States of America) failed. Noting that the first one (known as the United States of America) was successful, he sees a box score of .500. Even more interesting than his comment was the intemperance of the liberal comments that were sent in against him.

Secessionists generally do not seek independence for its own sake; but to restore the system that preserved freedom and opportunity for earlier generations of Americans. So far the opponents of secession have not addressed how continuing along the present path will preserve the Constitution and expand freedom and individual opportunities for Americans. Do you suppose it's because they can't?

As Old Rebel says in Rebellion, there is a sense of panic in the liberal camp. I'd say there is good reason.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Bu-shi is the Chinese word for "no" or "incorrect." It perfectly describes my reaction to the news story this morning that proclaimed "Analysts: Recession is over." Unemployment continues to rise and government debt is spiraling upward; but because a few firms have paid back their "stimulus" payments and stocks are making a slight uptick in the Dow, we're supposed to believe that everything is just hunky-dory.

It also is my reaction to charges that the "New World Order" conspiracy is a figment of the right wing extremists' and John Birchers' imagination. As evidence, I present this French blog, La Crise (The Crisis) by Eva R-Sistons, an avowed leftist. (The content is mostly in French, but the link is to an English-language post). The cartoon at the head of the post is certainly in the leftist tradition.

In the linked post, Mme. R-Sistons quotes an article by Olga Chetverikova giving detailing how the present situation was, in fact, manufactured. It is quite long, but suffice it to say that it supports this chilling conclusion:

Soon [the U.S. and the EU] will sign the agreement on personal data communication, in accordance with which the American authorities will be able to obtain such personal information as credit card numbers, bank account details, investments, travel routes or communication via Internet, as well as the information concerning race, political and religious beliefs, habits, etc.

It was under the US pressure that the EU countries have introduced biometric ppassports. The new EU regulation implies the overall switch of EU citizens to electronic passports from the end of June 2009 by 2012. New passports will contain a chip with not only passport info and a photo, but also fingerprints.

We are witnessing the creation of the global electronic concentration camp, and crisis, conflicts and wars are used to justify it. As Douglas Reed wrote “people tend to tremble in the face of an imaginary danger* and are too lazy to see the real one. [Emphasis added]”

Obviously, the technology she describes is available for governments to use. All that was lacking was the will to use it. Apparently we are about to see that will exercised. The challenge of information control is one that our media will not discuss. Instead, they play the handlers' game of misinformation and disinformation.

Decentralism is not right-wing extremism, either, as Brion McClanahan explains in a piece entitled "Decentralization for Socialists" at LewRockwell.com. He writes an article that traces decentralism to nineteenth-century American socialism, wherein he describes in great detail the desire of utopian idealists to "secede" from the larger society in pursuit of religious or economic goals.

Mr. McClanahan gives the Left this warning:

Leftists would do well to remember that their complaints about a slow and unresponsive federal government could be solved by decentralization. They have more control over state and local governments and could implement their utopian vision of an egalitarian society more quickly and easily. And, if you don’t like where you live, you can always move to a more suitable republic of your choice. There would be plenty of "conservative" and "liberal" republics to choose from in North America.

So to you, I say about reports that the recession is over, or that the Afghanistan war is in our national interest, or that my ideas are only for kooks and right-wing extremists, "bu-shi." Any resemblance to a well-known American expletive is completely intended.

The YouTube clip below displays excerpts from last Saturday's rally at the State Capitol in Austin, Texas. Two candidates for the Republican nomination for Governor spoke at the rally: Debra Medina and Larry Kilgore. Mr. Kilgore is a well-known activist in secessionist circles, who garnered more than 270,000 votes in his bid for the U.S. Senate in 2008 -- on an explicitly secessionist platform. I don't know how much of a threat he is to Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, but the race will be (to say the least) fascinating to watch.

Now available!

A new book by Harold D. Thomas:

Governing Ourselves: How Americans Can Restore Their Freedom

Have you ever wondered what real freedom is like? Governing Ourselves paints a picture of what a free society would look like in the 21st century, explains its theory in everyday English, and suggests how we can get there.

Price is $14.95 for the paperback book, $8.95 for the e-book. Available online from the publisher, Book Locker, and from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or Books a Million.

Ohio Republic RSS Feeds

Facebook Badge

Triggers to Ohio Independence

If the federal government takes any of the following actions (referred to in my posts as "triggers"), the State of Ohio would be fully justified in asserting its independence, following the reasoning used by the Founding Fathers in 1776:

Replacement [or suspension] of the U.S. Constitution, or any amendment thereto that reduces the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights).

Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within any state without the consent of the legislature of that state;

Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a military draft, for anyone of any age, except in punishment of crime (13th Amendment).

Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to a corporation or a foreign government.

Federal Reserve Bank policy that induces a hyperinflation (a depreciation of the U.S. dollar at an annual rate of 20% or more).